An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World.
This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

Politicole: The Real Problem That Bahamians Have With Illegal Haitian Immigrants

By NICOLE BURROWS:

THE story of the Bahamian
national of Haitian parentage who lost his illegal home in a legal
demolition has made its way across every form of local media, perhaps
most of all social media, where people have dialogued on the verge of
meltdown.

As
the Anson Aly threat grew more newsworthy in the Bahamas, in Canada a
Canadian national shot and killed a Canadian soldier on duty and then
stormed into the Canadian parliament to see who else he could take out;
he was subsequently identified as a “terrorist” by the Canadian prime
minister.

The
terrorist’s motive was said to have been vengeance, having been a
suspected militant and repeatedly denied a passport for travel to the
Middle East. According to his mother, “he was mad and felt trapped so
the only way out was death.”

Some
Bahamians have called Aly a terrorist, which, per definition, is
someone who threatens people with the intention of intimidating a
society or government. Using this definition, the only real difference
between the Canadian terrorist and the angry Haitian Bahamian is the
fact that the latter wasn’t carrying a weapon when he made his threat.

Many
Bahamians are concerned that if we take for a joke now threats of this
nature, which approximate the definition of terrorist activity, who will
be able to take such threats seriously or be themselves taken seriously
later on? And where and when do you draw the line?

We’ve
habitually allowed the little things that ail our nation to fall
through the cracks, and we continue to do it, so we continue to suffer
many a social ill.

On
this issue, people are saying forgiveness is key. And, yes, I agree you
can and should forgive. But forgiveness doesn’t exempt a wrongdoer from
punishment. How many people in Fox Hill Prison are forgiven, yet they
remain incarcerated?

In
any other sensible, progressive country, our man Aly would have been
made to incur some consequence greater than an apology for his
threatening verbiage.

Only
in this jokey little country can we not recognise a problem while it’s
brewing. Maybe if we throw some political colours in the mix some people
who need to jump would jump faster.

Many
– including immigration minister Mitchell – are saying that Aly is just
one person, and we should not allow one person to cause us alarm. But,
to draw an analogy in the context of this subject, there was one person
at the start of our problem with illegal immigrants, too. Look how that
turned out.

I
think the general idea amongst a large number of Bahamians is that it
may be one person now, but who’s to say that the next “one person” won’t
push the envelope further the next time, now that it is already clear
how far threats can go unpunished and how silly we are in managing
national security issues with no real demonstration of authority?

Our
reality, whether you believe it, is that the one man, the one person,
is representing countless others with the same mindset. And if you put
Aly, or any other woman or man like him, in that situation again, or
another situation like it, you’ll see where their allegiance really
lies.

There
is a very large group of compassionate people – of which I confess I am
one – who understand the plight of immigrants to seek a better economic
life in a country they think is prosperous. Hell, if the Bahamas is
overrun by poor illegal immigrants or rich legal immigrants, many of us
might find ourselves on a voyage to some other country we also believe
to be prosperous, where we can seek a better quality of life all around.

But
since Aly threatened his fellow Bahamians in a heated moment, there’s
been a lot of dialogue about how unloving Bahamians are towards Haitians
or people of Haitian descent. I won’t say that some Bahamians aren’t
downright cruel, using “Haitian” as a derogatory word to describe
someone unattractive, dark-skinned, broad-nosed, poor, colourfully
dressed, with a high body odour. These are all hateful, hurtful things
that would cause anyone to feel unhuman or marginalised. But this is not
the real issue at hand.

The
issue in this Aly incident is the specific underlying, ongoing problem
Bahamians have with illegal Haitian immigrants and the inability or the
refusal of our government and the Haitian government to stem the illegal
influx of Haitian migrants to the Bahamas once and for all.

Minister
Mitchell has been keen to point out that there is “not one
international group” causing us problems with illegal immigration, but
the fact of the matter is we all know where the biggest problem lies
with respect to illegal immigration in the Bahamas – we can see it
everywhere we turn. Yet the discussion somehow has centred on the
statement that not only Haitians are a problem for us, but so are many
other illegal populations.

Some
have even likened the immigration plight of the Haitians in the Bahamas
to the Mexicans in America. They ask why Bahamians are prejudiced
against Haitians when we have other illegals to contend with. That we
do. But there are a few significant differences between them, and I
believe these differences are at the core of the anger and frustration
that Bahamians have towards illegal Haitian migrants to the Bahamas.

Having
lived in the Bahamas and America, and being exposed to both groups and
their respective ways of life, I find that the problem many Bahamians
have with illegal Haitian immigrants is a deep-seated frustration that
goes far beyond their desire for a better life; no one wants to deny
them that in principle. But illegal immigration of Haitians to the
Bahamas is really a multi-pronged problem, and it is very similar in
composition to the concerns US citizens have about illegal Mexican
immigrants. And they are all legitimate concerns.

In
my estimation, it comes down to three things, best explained by drawing
comparisons to other large migrating populations, particularly of
Chinese and Indian origin, as they are two of the largest in the world.

Firstly,
by and large, as compared to the Haitian and Mexican immigrant
populations, Chinese and Indian immigrants tend to have a higher degree
of education before they migrate. Many have credentials for marketable
skills beyond that of agricultural farmhands, and whereas the latter are
necessary, the former present a diversity that is needed to build a
country. Moreover, the (Indo) Asian immigrants have a better attitude
about building a nation, which shows in the quality of their
contribution to their host country.

They
don’t continue to profess that their country of birth is better, or
best, yet remain in the country they migrated to, taking everything they
can, investing in nothing and repatriating their income or sharing it
primarily within their own communities.

Secondly,
Chinese and Indian immigrants tend not to breed by the half-dozen; not
so for Haitian and Mexican immigrants. And this strikes a delicate and
particular chord for me and many of my compatriots, because, in our
younger years, we held off on reproducing to be responsible and to
ensure that we were financially equipped to care for our children in the
best way possible when we did have them, while the illegal Haitian
immigrants multiplied and are still now procreating left and right with
no care whatsoever for the burden it places on the Bahamian society.

Haitians
and Mexicans are largely comprised of people who follow the Catholic
religion, and they don’t readily subscribe to birth control. But when
has “more mouths to feed” ever helped anybody’s economic situation or
lifted them out of poverty? Clearly, there is something here that the
Catholic church has failed to teach its followers: if you’re already in
poverty, and you have little to no education to improve your
opportunities, it tends to lead to greater poverty when you multiply
inordinately.

Observing
the growing numbers of illegal Haitian immigrants and their offspring
in the Bahamas, it has become more than obvious that extreme/excessive
reproduction is their way of life, and it is more likely to occur
amongst the poorer Haitian and Mexican immigrant populations than the
poor Chinese or Indian immigrants.

Finally,
and without mincing words, Haitian and Mexican immigrants have a known
culture of violent aggression, as demonstrated by the types of crimes
they commit and the ways in which they commit them.

Chinese
and Indian immigrants can be very pushy, maybe because they compete to
survive in their very large populations, but their first idea to resolve
a dispute isn’t to pop off 10 rounds on someone, beat them to a pulp,
hack them to pieces, or tie them with a Colombian necktie. There’s a
degree of responsibility in Chinese and Indian culture that makes them
point their aggression at themselves.

I’m
reminded of my Haitian neighbour who, only a few months ago, killed a
baby bird on her porch with her slipper, when the little bird had only
lost its way from its nest. The woman didn’t kill it because she was
hungry and needed to eat it; she killed it just because it was there.
And then threw it into the street.

It’s
a simple, solitary incident, but it is still violent aggression for no
reason whatsoever. All these isolated occurrences taken together reveal a
strong tendency toward violence that lends itself to a colossal crime
problem. And we have the numbers to prove it.

The
reality is that extremely populated countries of the world have people
who migrate to other nations in search of better lives for themselves
and their children.

The
countries they tend to migrate to are usually larger, developed
countries, which have open job markets, the need for unskilled
labourers, wide expanses of land to accommodate increases in population,
and education and healthcare systems that are properly constructed and
fairly well-operated and funded.

But what, of these things, do we have in our little Bahamas?

Is it not in the Bahamian interest to defend what little we do have, and insist that it be developed in a sustainable way?

To
top it all off, when there is already a sizeable portion of the native
Bahamian population that exhibits violent aggression, low education and
high reproductivity, adding illegal immigrants of similar profiles only
makes matters worse, because the Bahamian disadvantaged become even more
marginalised in their own country.

But
rather than impose a penalty on and make an example of the offender who
threatens the little Bahamians have now, the authorities prefer to
admonish the law-abiding. Their answer is for the people who are “up in
arms” to “shoosh”. Be quiet. Stop talking about it. Don’t get upset.
Move on.

Well,
no. Because the path to being or becoming “ignorant” is to “ignore”,
and to make no statement or movement with respect to the problem at
hand.

And,
if we don’t mind believing the genius Einstein, whose many theories
about our world ring true to this day, “nothing happens until something
moves.”

Monday, October 27, 2014

Venezuela’s failure to develop an effective strategy to reduce its
economy’s dependence on gas and oil threatens the social successes and
future viability of the Bolivarian project.

Over the 15 years of the Bolivarian government in Venezuela,
significant changes have taken place in the political culture, the
social and organisational fabric, and the material living conditions of
previously excluded low-income groups. Through multiple social policies
(known as “missions”) aimed at different sectors of the population,
levels of poverty and extreme poverty have been reduced significantly.

According to ECLAC, Venezuela has become – together with Uruguay –
one of the two countries with the lowest levels of inequality in Latin
America. People are better fed. Effective literacy programmes have been
carried out. With Cuban support, the Barrio Adentro mission has brought
primary medical care to rural and urban low-income groups throughout the
country.

The state pensions system has been massively expanded to include
millions of older people. The increase in university enrolment has been
equally extraordinary. For the last few years, a housing programme for
people with low incomes has been taken forward. Unemployment has been
kept at a low level and informal-sector employment has been reduced from
51% in mid-1999 to 41% in mid-2014.

The amount spent on social investment between 1999 and 2013 is
estimated to total some US$650 billion. According to the UNDP,
Venezuela’s Human Development Index rose from 0.662 in the year 2000 to
0.748 in 2012, taking the country’s human development ranking from
medium to high.

This has been a time of dynamic grassroots organising and
participation, with the setting up of Water Committees and Community
Councils, Health Committees, Urban Land Committees, Communal Councils,
Communes... Most of this organisational dynamism was the result of
government policies expressly aimed at promoting these processes.

Equally important has been the weight of Venezuela’s experience –
particularly its constitutional reform process – in the progressive
shift or turn to the left that has taken place in Latin America over
these years. Its influence has also been important in the setting up of
various regional integration mechanisms – UNASUR, CELAC, Petrocaribe,
ALBA – that have strengthened the region’s autonomy and lessened its
historical dependence on the United States.

Nevertheless, the social changes that have taken place were not the
result of equally profound changes in the country’s economic structure.
On the contrary, the last fifteen years have seen a consolidation of the
rentier state model, with an increased dependency on revenue from oil
exports. Oil’s share of total export value rose from 68.7% in 1998 to
96% in the last few years. The value of non-oil exports and private
sector exports has fallen in absolute terms during this time. Industry’s
contribution to GDP shrank from 17% in 2000 to 13% in 2013. [1]

United Nations General Assembly, September 24, 2014: Argentina's President Fernandez de Kirchner Denounces Economic Terrorism

Dazzling and supremely erudite, Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner denounced as terrorism the economic policies that have been strangling the developing world during the past century, and are continuing these criminal actions today, the legacy of Milton Friedman’s Chicago Boys’ gangster economic policies. These policies, implemented by the infliction of “shock therapy,” institutionalizing torture, murder and disappearances of individuals, groups, and often heads of state who defy these barbaric economic models, are policies which are more accurately described as global economic theft, sanctioned by the theory that “might makes right.”

The IMF’s “conditionalities” were described, in sanitized language, as “structural adjustment programs,” demanding the obliteration of free national education and health care programs, causing the destitution of majorities of citizens in the developing countries, and resulting in the gross indebtedness of collaborating governments to parasitic interests of multinational corporations, banks, hedge funds, vulture funds and their ilk. The Milton Friedman Chicago Boys policies were described by one of Friedman’s most brilliant students, the German born economist Andre Gunder Frank, as “economic genocide.”

President Kirchner described her late husband, President Nestor Kirchner’s success in rebuilding Argentina, despite the total bankruptcy into which decades of the Chicago Boys policies had plunged a devastated Argentina. She described the earlier chaotic situation, in which Argentina had five presidents in one week during 2001, a disaster rivaled, perhaps, only by Bolivia, which, similarly hostage of the Chicago Boys, had three revolutions in one afternoon, finally resulting Bolivia’s progressive presidency of Juan Jose Torres in 1970. President Torres was overthrown, ten months later, by fascist General Hugo Banzer, with the blessing of Washington, and was then murdered in Argentina in 1975.

The earlier history of Argentina described by President Kirchner, a history common to almost all Latin America Southern Cone governments hostage to the Chicago Boys’ policy of economic genocide, is succinctly summed up by Professor John Dinges in his work “The Condor Years,” (Pages 154-155).

[By 1975], “Inside the U.S. embassy Legal Attache Robert Scherrer quickly developed information that the Torres murder was part of the new security forces cooperation among the military governments…the bloody reality of mounting repression and the assassination of three prominent figures – the Uruguayan Senators Michelini, Gutierrez and Bolivian President Torres who had sought protection in Argentina… .Slowly, among those reading the most secret intelligence traffic about Latin America – in the embassies, in the CIA, in the Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI and the State Department there was an awakening to a flow of hard evidence that was soon to become a flood: that by 1975 the government of Argentina was committing human rights violations on a massive scale never before seen in Latin America, and the six military governments of the Southern Cone were cooperating to assassinate one another’s opponents.”

This was the Argentina in which Presidents Cristina and Nestor Kirchner spent their earliest years. This was the environment in which the Chicago Boys’ murderous economic policies were forced down the throats of the majority of Argentina’s citizens, utilizing torture, murder and “disappearances” to facilitate the “privatization” of the country’s resources in the organized theft of the nation’s patrimony. This theft was engineered by one of history’s most deadly mobs of criminals, the Chicago Boys, trained by the sociopath Milton Friedman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for economics in a decision grossly discrediting the legitimacy of the Nobel Committee.

President Kirchner described the economic and social recovery steered by her husband, President Nestor Kirchner, a program of social and economic inclusiveness which made education widely available to Argentina’s majority, which decreased unemployment while establishing social safety nets, a program in which Argentina’s economy began to thrive, as Nestor Kirchner weaned Argentina’s economy from the IMF ‘debt trap’ (the title of the superb book by economist Cheryl Payer), and made arrangements to pay off the astronomical debts amassed during the previous period of economic domination by the Chicago Boys, (debts for which Nestor Kirchner’s government was in no way responsible). President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner spoke with legitimate pride of Argentina’s success in reducing widespread poverty, despite the financial disaster engineered by the thugs of the international financial system who are currently still attempting to hold Argentina hostage.

President Kirchner voiced the concerns of the greater part of the developing world, which voted on September 9, 2014, for the United Nations General Assembly resolution: “Toward the Establishment of a Multilateral Legal Framework for Sovereign Debt Restructuring Process.” Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Hector Timerman (whose father, the great journalist and human rights advocate, Jacobo Timerman, had been imprisoned and tortured for two years in Argentina during that same “dirty war” of 1976 described earlier) introduced that resolution, “establishing an ethical political and legal pathway to end unbridled speculation.” The resolution was adopted, with 124 nations supporting it, eleven nations opposing it, and forty one abstentions…The scandalous profits made by parasitic “vulture funds” are funneled into campaign and lobbying to prevent change in the current viciously unjust economic architecture. The Cuban delegate stated the appalling fact that “Developing countries had paid many times the amounts originally received as loans and that devoured resources essential for development.” The distinguished American economist Joseph Stiglitz has repeatedly emphasized precisely this same fact.

President Kirchner denounced U.S. Federal Judge Thomas Griesa, whose currently strangling injunctions, prohibiting Argentina’s repayment of 92.4 percent of the debt until the “vulture funds” are paid in full, would force the return of Argentina’s economy to destitution, totally destroying the new economic and social programs which are empowering Argentina’s majority, and would quickly restore the earlier squalor of the economically colonized Argentina into which Milton Friedman’s thugs and the IMF had forced Argentina to subsist for decades of Kirchner’s earlier life.

“In the early nineties, the Argentine state sold off the riches of the country so rapidly and so completely that the project far surpassed what had taken place in Chile a decade earlier. By 1994, 90 percent of all state enterprises had been sold to private companies, including Citibank, Bank Boston, France’s Suez and Vivendi, Spain’s Repsol and Telefonica. Before making the sales, (former President) Menem and (former Finance Minister) Cavallo had generously performed a valuable service for the new owners: they had fired roughly 700,000 of their workers, according to Cavallo’s own estimates; some put the number much higher. The oil company alone lost 27,000 workers during the Menem years, An admirer of Jeffrey Sachs, Cavallo called this process “shock Therapy.” Menem had an even more brutal phrase for it: in a country still traumatized by mass torture, he called it “major surgery without anesthetic.”*

“* In January 2006, long after Cavallo and Menem were out of office, Argentines received some surprising news. It turned out that the Cavallo Plan wasn’t Cavallo’s at all, nor was it the IMF’s: Argentina’s entire early-nineties shock therapy program was written in secret by JP Morgan and Citibank, two of Argentina’s largest private creditors. In the course of a lawsuit against the Argentine government, the noted historian Alejandro Olmos Gaona uncovered a jaw-dropping 1,400 page document written by the two U.S. banks for Cavallo in which “the policies carried out by the government from ’92 on are drawn up…the privatization of utilities, the labour law reform, the privatization of the pension system. It is all laid out with great attention to detail

….Everyone believes that the economic plan pursued since 1992 was Domingo Cavallos’s creation, but that’s not the way it is.” In the long term, Cavallo’s program in its entirety would prove disastrous for Argentina.

…So many jobs were lost that well over half the country would eventually be pushed below the poverty line.”

As President Fernandez Kirchner charges, today it is obvious that U.S. Federal Judge Griesa’s ruling is an attempt to destabilize Argentina, using a new imperialist tactic devised by the current gangsters of international capitalism who thrive by devouring the lives and patrimony of the majority of citizens of the developing world, and, indeed, impose these tactics upon the “99%” percent of citizens within the countries of the developed world.

President Fernandez Kirchner explicitly denounced as economic terrorists the “vulture funds” which, supported by the United States’ judicial system, are attempting to destabilize and ultimately overthrow her government. She stated: “Not only those who place bombs are terrorists, but also those who destabilize the economy of countries, and cause hunger, misery and poverty from the sin of speculation.”

Judge Griesa is attempting, in fact, to fine Argentina $50,000 per day for not complying with his ruling, and declaring Argentina in contempt of court.” In response to his brutal arrogance, President Kirchner cited a quote from former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who described such “creditors” as immoral, preventing countries from tackling problems of education, health and poverty.

Argentina’s president spoke fiercely of such engineered poverty and destitution as creating fertile breeding ground for terrorist leaders recruiting among those who have lost all hope of lives affording them options for fulfillment and dignity, and her voice echoed, 35 years later, the speech delivered on August 27, 1980 at the United Nations Eleventh Special Session on Economic Development: “Toward a New International Economic Order”: Joaquim Chissano, then Foreign Minister of Mozambique addressed the General Assembly, decades ago, and stated:

“The existing economic order is profoundly unjust. It runs counter to the basic interests of the developing countries…we see the perpetuation of underdevelopment in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The peoples of those continents are forced to face hunger, starvation, poverty, nakedness, disease and illiteracy increasingly. We denounce any kind of economic prosperity or independence for part of mankind built on the dependence, domination and exploitation of the rest of mankind…the developing countries have warned the world about the need to take measures to eliminate the main obstacles to emancipation and progress of the peoples struggling for a proper standard of living which would meet the basic needs of life.

…During the colonial period we were branded as rebels and insurgents when we demanded the restitution of our status as human beings. When we demanded independence we tried to talk peaceably with our masters, but no one would listen. The dialogue of force was imposed upon us. We took up arms. Much blood was spilt. But only in that way were we able to win.”

Twenty-nine years later, at the 64 Session of the United Nations General Assembly, on September 24, 2008, Stjepan Mesic, President of the Republic of Croatia, and the last President of Yugoslavia stated:

“Our world is finally still dominated by an economic model which is self-evidently exhausted and has now reached a stage where it is itself generating crises, causing hardship to thousands and hundreds of thousands of people. If one attempts to save this already obsolete model at any cost, if one stubbornly defends a system based on greed and devoid of any social note worthy of mention, the result can be only one: social unrest harboring the potential to erupt into social insurgence on a global scale.”

Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, President of Argentina today raises her powerful voice in, once again, the noble call for economic and social justice. Those who are guilty of perpetuating the injustices she and so many other world leaders abhor walked out of the hall as she spoke. And those are the ones who may ultimately pay the fatal price for ignoring her warning.

Friday, October 24, 2014

CELAC calls for protection of migrants’ rights

QUITO.—
With a call to protect the rights of migrant workers
the Third Community of Latin American and Caribbean
States (CELAC) Meeting on Migration began in the
city of Azogues, southern Ecuador.

"Migrant workers can no longer be
viewed solely as labor, we must ensure their rights,"
stated Ecuadorian deputy minister for Human Mobility,
María Landázuri, at the opening of the two-day event.

According to the deputy minister,
the search for safe migration facilities for
citizens must involve both the governments of the
origin and destination countries and the people in
general.

Landázuri commented that the CELAC
meeting - in which representatives from 33 member
countries of the regional bloc are participating -
aims to share experience and find points of
agreement.

"There are more similarities than
differences, and our ultimate aim is to create
spaces of peace," she stated, adding that the
agreements established in the meeting will be
presented to the UN and CELAC leadership, reported
PL.

According to the Ecuadorian minister,
one of the main challenges CELAC experts will face
will be developing a action plan to protect migrants
and provide them with greater resources, in addition
to addressing the issues of unaccompanied minors and
reuniting families.

According to the agenda, they will
also analyze sub-regional protection and response
mechanisms, migration and development, and the
advances and prospects in this area between the
European Union and CELAC. (PL)

It takes a strong leader to sit up and take notice when the tides of
public opinion are turning. Often the idea of real change can be
concerning to politicians. However, in Trinidad and Tobago people are
crying out for their rights to be recognised, as a whole section of
society suffers continued discrimination and abuse. Will the leaders
listen to their calls?

A few months ago, the country’s Commission in charge of the reform of
the constitution pointed out “a high level of violence and abuse
directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual or intersex (LGBTI)
people” in Trinidad and Tobago

But over the last couple of weeks something has changed, there is
excitement in the air. Perhaps the country is having its most mature
debate since independence half a century ago. The nation is discussing
what place to give to those who doesn’t identify themselves as
heterosexuals, those often called LGBTI.

The ground-swell of support has been palpable, and has come as a
reaction to a mis-judged statement from Prime Minister Kamla
Persad-Bissessar.

Last month, during an interview in New York, she ducked and dived when
she was questioned about the “decriminalization of homosexuality” in the
country. She said that it isn’t something her government is seeking to
do at the moment because “it’s too divided, there’s no consensus on that
issue.” She then rapidly ended the discussion saying the question
should be put before a national referendum.

Since then, a fierce debate has taken place. Many new voices have
appeared to challenge the Prime Minister’s dismissal of her government’s
obligations to protect the rights of LGBTI people.

The public debate has been bolstered by recent developments.

Recently UNAIDS, the United Nations agency in charge of the fight
against HIV/AIDS, presented the results of a survey undertaken in
Trinidad and Tobago.

An encouraging 78% of people interviewed said that “homosexuals should
not be treated differently”, and 56% said that they themselves were
tolerant towards LGBTI people.

Then, last week the country’s Equal Opportunity Commission announced
that it will recommend including sexual orientation, age and HIV status
in national legislation designed to protect citizens against
discrimination.

Surely if the Prime Minister needs a green light to act on this issue,
she has just received a strong message: the country is ready to move
forward.

In fact, Kamla Persad-Bissessar herself has already shown she is open to
change. In 2012 she noted that “the stigmatisation of homosexuality in
Trinidad and Tobago is a matter which must be addressed on the grounds
of human rights and dignity to which every individual is entitled under
international law.” Amnesty International could not agree more.

However, while the prime minister can take strength from the outpouring
of support and call for change, her suggestion of a referendum is not
the surest way forward. If the prime minister is serious about effecting
progressive change she does not need to put the question to a
referendum and risk a result that reinforces discrimination. She should
instead promote legislation that would ensure that Trinidad and Tobago’s
laws comply with its international obligations and implement
appropriate awareness raising measures to combat society’s prejudices
and discriminatory practices.

Above all, protection from discrimination is an internationally-binding
obligation that has been voluntarily accepted by the Trinidadian state.
Over the years, UN experts have clarified that treaty provisions
prohibiting discrimination implicitly proscribe discrimination on the
basis of sexual orientation. It’s a responsibility which needs to be
acted upon by the government, not something that’s optional.

Trinidad and Tobago has repeatedly proven to be a tolerant society.
Protection from discrimination is a key component amongst its diverse
communities, the foundation on which the society has been built.

It’s exactly because of this strong track-record in tolerance that the
prime minister’s inaction and excuses need to be challenged. When so
many people and institutions are voicing concerns that LGBTI
Trinidadians are continuously facing discrimination, the Prime Minister
can no longer ignore the issue.

To improve the human rights record in Trinidad and Tobago the country
needs leadership. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar can be that
leader and could truly make a mark on the country’s history and change
the human rights environment for the better.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Bahamas: A Perfect Financial Storm Brewing in Tourism Paradise

By Norman Trabulsy Jr.

The Bahamas is entering a period for which I see a Perfect Storm gathering, and this is unfortunate. A Perfect Storm comes about when a number of factors synergize to exacerbate what would otherwise be a mildly disruptive event. Although a number of other supporting realities strongly buttress my view, for the sake of brevity I will base my analysis and prediction of a Perfect Storm on the following.

Implementation of a value-added tax (VAT)

It does not take a Sherlock Holmes to figure out who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bahamian government in uncollected property taxes. Value-added tax is being implemented because the government has failed in its job and been unable, or unwilling, to collect even half of the taxes it is owed. The VAT is a consumer-based and regressive tax, meaning that it hits the poorest the hardest.

The estimated revenue from the VAT assumes that the economy will remain roughly at its current level. I strongly suggest that the Bahamian economy will take a very hard hit for several years due to the high cost of VAT compliance, higher prices, fraud, and the overestimate of the tax revenues to be collected, causing the government to further tighten its belt, all contributing to a dangerous shrinking of the economy. This: before the risk of any hiccup in the tourism sector, which accounts for 80 percent of The Bahamas’ gross domestic product (GDP). It is rather naive to suggest that the tourism sector is immune to rising prices, when survey after survey show that the No. 1 complaint of tourists is high prices. Sun, sea and sand have a value, but there is a limit, and we are pushing it.

Legalization and proliferation of gambling web shops

In The Bahamas, a social epidemic of gambling appears to be a symptom of the larger desperation of being unable to make a decent living and provide for one’s family by holding an average job. But more on that later. I predict that the net effect of a proliferation gambling web shops will be a continued drain on the real economy and an increasing transfer of monies into the hands of web shop owners. The health of an economy is based on the amount of money that freely circulates within it. As more money leaves the real economy via the web shops, the net result is unarguable: a rapid and decisive transfer of wealth into the pockets of those who produce nothing.

A software designer for some of the web shops told me that, for every winner, there are 8,000 losers. Ponder these odds for a moment. I live on a small family island, and I have paid attention to this matter for nearly a decade. I cannot count the times Bahamians who do not gamble have said to me, “These web shops are going to take this country down.” Perhaps they say this because, like me, they have seen the dashed hopes, the unfinished houses, the children whose lunch moneys were squandered by their parents’ spinning, and the money leaving this small island on a weekly basis that could have gone to so many worthy causes and needs. The language should be more honest: gambling is not an industry, it is a Ponzi scheme, and it should be called what it is.

Downgrading of the credit worthiness of The Bahamas by Moody’s

Moody’s recently downgraded the credit worthiness of the Bahamas due to the unlikely probability that it will reduce its 50 percent debt-to-GDP ratio. We are unlikely to do this because for the past 10 years our country has only grown by six percent, and we continue to borrow more money. Moody’s rightfully wonders where the government will find the money to pay off its increasing debt. The prospects are bleak. I liken this situation to the following conversation. A friend comes to me and says, “You owe me $500 today.” I ask, “Why is that?” He answers, “Because 50 years ago your grandfather borrowed $500 from my grandfather and he said you would pay me the $500 your grandfather owed him.” Who doesn’t think this is absurd? Yet, what do the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Free National Movement (FNM) do each year to the citizens of The Bahamas? How is this any less absurd than what our well-educated economists, politicians and lawyers are proposing to us today? When politicians take out these big loans, with interest, who winds up paying for them?

State of the global economy

Not enough honest people have spoken out about the implications of what the major players in the financial sector and government officials have been doing. Since the global financial crisis in 2008, the United States in particular, has pumped trillions of taxpayers dollars into the banks and financial institutions there and around the world, in an attempt to “save” the economy that was put in danger by, you guessed it, the banks and financial institutions. Soon the consequences of this policy will become yet more apparent in rising inflation, increasing inequality, and a greater impoverishment for most of humanity. Any prudent government would have, after assessing the crisis and its causes, broken up the largest of banks and nationalized those that had done the most harm to society.

The largest banks, financial institutions, and here in The Bahamas even the web shops, have completely captured our politicians and the political process. Consider the phrases: Too Big To Fail and Too Big to Jail. Justice has become lopsided and no longer applies to the rich and powerful. This is the reality today throughout the world, and it is contrary to any concept of democracy. The people of The Bahamas said “No” on the referendum regarding web shops. Yet, what did our Prime Minister do? Who do the politicians really work for? Does democracy exist in The Bahamas, or anywhere? Answer honestly. Now, what are you going to do about it?

Increasing poverty rate in The Bahamas

The realities about poverty in The Bahamas are probably worse than the government statistics suggest. For an indicator of the real state of our economy and the hurdles that must be overcome to change our course, speak to any social service worker. They will tell you that they are seeing an increasingly depressed, despondent and hopeless people who come for assistance. Yet the government is cutting back on social services to balance the budget, so that there will be even less resources to help the rising numbers of people who need them. The economic considerations are in themselves sufficient cause for concern, but it is also reasonable to expect that, as the poverty rate increases, the crime rate will increase, and public safety, the quality of life and tourism will decline.

Increasing emphasis on the “financial services industry”

The so-called financial services industry is the second largest contributor to the GDP of The Bahamas, after tourism. It is not an industry but a scheme to attract people who don’t want to pay taxes in their own countries and need a place to hide their money. The Bahamas levies no income tax, no corporate tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, and it seems that property taxes are very low and not collectable. The money to run the government comes, for the most part, from the working people of The Bahamas. The rich pay a minuscule percentage of their incomes to live in paradise: sort of like going to Disney World for free.

If the tax policies here in The Bahamas actually created an incentive for investment, an improvement in the job market, and a healthy economy, wouldn’t there be better results after all these decades of such policies? Instead, our politicians, lawyers, bankers, the financial services representatives, all of them, have become beholden to big money. Who, in their right mind, can possibly say that things here and around the world are going well and that the future looks bright for most of the world’s people? The “financial services industry” produces little to improve the lives of ordinary people. There is no reason to give the rich a free ride in this country; the benefits of living here are too great to be given away for free. I say: make them pay their fair share. The Bahamian people need to stand up and call for these changes, because not one person in the government has the guts to tell it like it is.

Aspiration to join free-trade organizations

Generally speaking, free trade in today’s world is a way for transnational companies to subvert a county’s legal system and destroy its sovereignty. The result of almost every modern free-trade agreement has been the destruction of a country’s agricultural and manufacturing base and its replacement by highly subsidized foreign corporate ownership, gutting of environmental laws and crushing of organized labor. Any complaints and lawsuits must now be handled by an extra-judicial group of corporate lawyers with loyalties to big business. This idea of The Bahamas joining these free-trade agreements will only further the interests of those businessmen, lawyers and politicians who are pushing them. They will not help the tourist economy or manufacturing economy of The Bahamas or create more and better jobs for Bahamians. These issues must be known to the Bahamian people before our politicians sell this country out from under our feet.

Lack of leadership

Anyone old enough to remember, or who has gone to YouTube to hear, the words of Martin Luther King Jr. understands that we have no statesmen in this world today. Do not be duped by the words of the first African-American US President. He is not even worthy to stand in the shadows of MLK Jr. Listen to the words of our own politicians in The Bahamas: mere words, poisonous words, for they are meant to trick us into believing that they have our interests in mind. Nowhere in the world is there a leader with the integrity, honesty, courage and fortitude required to govern. Each and every one is beholden to the moneyed interests in the world today. I have heard the expression, “We get the government we deserve.” If this is true, I am saddened by where we are as a people. If we can rise up, and create a better society, it is time to do so. Let us get rid of the charlatans, the spineless, the greedy, the dishonest and egotistical excuses for public servants that we now have. This isn’t about one political party or another. Wake up people! I believe we are staring a Perfect Storm in the face. It is up to us to do something for ourselves to avoid the impending crisis.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Amid
rising concern regarding the Ebola health crisis, Government officials
from around the globe are taking the necessary action to prepare their
respective countries for a potential outbreak and protect their
citizens. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of this Christie led
administration. The Government of the Bahamas has taken too lax an
approach to the handling of this disease which is now at our back door;
and as with countless other national issues, our leaders have shown
themselves ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL.

The Democratic National Alliance, more than two weeks ago,
called for the Ministry of Health, helmed by Dr. Perry Gomez, to begin a
widespread education campaign on the effects of the disease and outline
specifically, the government’s plans to prevent a possible outbreak.
According to the Minister, the government has created what officials
claim is a dynamic preparedness plan to protect the citizenry, a plan
based on meetings with stakeholders from various sectors of government
and private sector. For this, the DNA commends the Minister of Health
for at least taking these very minimal steps, however MORE IS NEEDED.

Instead
of providing clarity on the way forward, the Minister has left even
more unanswered questions. His most recent update statement on the Ebola
virus and its implications, was yet another wasted opportunity for the
government who, instead of providing details of its plan and when
implementation of said plan would occur, he simply regurgitated facts
about the disease which could be acquired by a simple Google search.
What we need are SPECIFICS! What we need are FACTS! What we need is ACCESS to the government’s plan!

The
government’s failure to release that plan to the public is cause for
concern and raises a number of Questions. For example, has the
government identified secure isolation centers to house the potentially
infected and If so, WHERE? This is of particular
importance as many public healthcare clinics and facilities exist within
the heart of residential communities which could spell disaster if
exposure occurs. What are the protocols in the event of a confirmed
case? Have healthcare professional been properly briefed regarding those
protocols?

In a statement to the media last week the
Chief Medical Officer revealed an even more frightening reality when he
asserted there was only 3 days’ worth of medical supply to treat an
infected individual, even though experts suggest that an infected
patient can live up to 8 days after becoming symptomatic; coupled with
the recent “loss” of millions of dollars in prescription medication from
the Princess Margaret Hospital is even MORE ALARMING!

As
the deadly virus continues to overwhelm isolation centers and public
healthcare systems worldwide, scores of countries around the globe and
even within this region have already implemented increased screening
processes and travel bans to protect their borders; particularly as it
relates to persons traveling from locales severely affected by the
disease. Here in the Bahamas however, such options are only now being CONSIDERED
by government officials locally even though thousands of visitors from
around the world enter our borders by air and sea daily. For decades,
our country’s porous borders have posed serious challenges in terms of
immigration, drug and weapons smuggling and even human smuggling. Now,
the threat of this lethal disease threatens to further aggravate an
already contentious problem. Rather than take the proactive approach
like our regional counterparts, this government seems comfortable
relying on foreign nations to perform Ebola screenings.

According
to statistics from the Center for Disease Control, the recent Ebola
outbreak, categorized as the worst in the world’s history, has killed
over four thousand, five hundred people with the number of new
infections to grow exponentially by the end of the year. The disease,
which has an incubation period of 2 to 21 days, means that an infected
individual traveling through Europe or the United States may
successfully pass through screenings in those countries only to become
symptomatic and contagious once reaching our borders. Since January 2014
to September 2014, the Bahamas has had at least 66 persons who have
traveled from West Africa to the Bahamas. Those figures alone reinforce
the absolute need for enhanced screening and public education.

Enhanced
screening protocols must ensure that travelers from affected countries
be questioned at the border by a health care professional stationed
there to determine the potential risk. Travelers must also be subject to
physical screenings such as having their temperature taken – with an
Infrared Thermometer to limit physical contact – and observation for
other Symptoms of Ebola. Information packets containing facts about the
disease and its symptoms should also be provided at the border so that
travelers themselves are vigilant about their own health status.

These
additional screenings are a layered approach and must be used with
other public health measures to ensure that every precaution is being
taken.

While it is important to refrain from inciting panic over the potential impact of the disease on the Bahamas, it is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to educate the citizenry. In the absence of actual FACT and INFORMATION,
only fear, uncertainty and misinformation remain. The government MUST
not treat this issue as it has treated countless others. Shrouding their
plans in secrecy will not keep Bahamians safe. ONLY ACTION WILL!

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Hernán Luis Torres Núñez, a frequent economics commentator on
leftist Venezuelan community forum Aporrea, argues that Venezuela should
learn from Bolivian president Evo Morales’ pragmatic style of
governance for “21st century socialism”.

A few days ago a friend asked me if I’d written about the situation
in the country again. I answered no, because the government hadn’t taken
any action on the economy that served as an excuse for me to write
something. The only thing that’s happened worth mentioning is the
assassination of Robert Serra, which is in an area of events that isn’t
my strength. Also I don’t like speculating about this type of issue,
above all because the investigations haven’t finished solving the crime.

However it should be pointed out that not making decisions is a way
of deciding. That is, maintaining the status quo is a way of signalling
that although the situation is very difficult, making decisions can
worsen the situation. This reminds me of the second government of
[Rafael] Caldera [1994 - 1999]. When he was elected he put the economy
in the freezer and let time pass. Caldera was clear that the economic
adjustment measures of [former president] Carlos Andres Perez [1989 -
1993] had cost him his job. [Caldera] finally implemented these measures
two years into his term, when the political atmosphere had calmed down.

These are very difficult times for the Venezuelan economy. We can’t
exaggerate when we see indices of inflation and shortages of all kinds
of products (because we no longer see the shortages indicator); when we
see that dollars [for imports] are sporadically shared out to different
economic sectors at a drip drop; when we see that oil is dropping to 80
dollars a barrel; when we have three official exchange rates to the
dollar, each one overvaluing the bolivar and generating deep distortions
in the economy; when we see that property prices reach 50 million
bolivars (US $7.9 million at highest official rate); when the prices of
used cars are crazy, etc. Therefore we can speculate that no economic
decisions are being taken to stabilise the situation because these would
have a very strong impact on Venezuelans’ quality of life. A strong
devaluation toward one exchange rate, a generalised increase in prices
(which has been happening surreptitiously), a petrol price increase, and
a possible tax rise would make poverty rates violently shoot up. This
situation would put the government against the wall, as its banner all
these years has been the eradication of poverty. The goal of zero
poverty would be smashed to smithereens.

On the other hand, it’s important to point out that politicians
pursue power, and once obtained, they try to keep it for the longest
time possible. Good economic performance is something that can favour
the politicians in government, and bad management sooner or later ends
up taking its toll and hastening the fall of the governors, above all if
we live in an effective democracy. By virtue of what’s happening in the
economy and with parliamentary elections next year, the fear of losing
political power is a close possibility. As such, in these moments
political calculation can impose itself over economic reality.

Meanwhile, Evo Morales has just won his third term in Bolivia, and
overwhelmingly. Bolivia is experiencing economic growth, and in 2015 is
expected to be the country that grows most in the region. There is a
construction boom in La Paz, with new shopping malls full of foreign
brands. In Bolivia there are no currency controls, and yet,
international reserves reach 48% of GDP. It appears that there hasn’t
been capital flight, and rather Bolivia is today a very attractive site
for foreign investment. An important reduction in poverty has also
occurred.

The opposition to Morales’ government, that at one point backed the
division of the country, has softened its posture. Apparently Evo
Morales has been capable of gaining the support of the middle class and
some business. The conflict of his first years in government has given
way to social, political and economic stability.

All of this drives us to think about what the key to success in
Bolivia is, a country with far less resources than Venezuela but that
has been capable of establishing a successful popular government, very
different from the Venezuelan case. It’s necessary in the field of
Venezuelan socialism that the Bolivian case is studied and the necessary
lessons taken.

I’ve often heard the argument that other countries don’t have
anti-patriotic parasitic bourgeoisies, a reasoning that seems
contradictory and a little naïve, because in some way it’s saying that
the success of socialism depends on the kindness and patriotism of the
bourgeoisie, which is nonsense. The industrial bourgeoisie in all
countries behaves in the same way, it invests to profit, and if it can’t
profit it moves its capital somewhere else. We can’t forget that there
was a moment that the Bolivian bourgeoisie and its half moon movement
wanted to remove Morales from power the underhand way. If today the
Bolivian bourgeoisie is investing and not encouraging capital flight
it’s because it trusts that its investment will be respected and will
perform well. All of this has occurred due to negotiation between the
Bolivian bourgeoisie and Evo’s government.

The above is notable because Evo Morales has declared himself a
Marxist and admirer of Fidel [Castro], however, it would appear that he
is also a pragmatic man who understands that socialism of the 21st century has to be radically different than that of the 20th,
something that the person who was our economic flag bearer, [former
minister Jorge] Giordani, could never understand and less so put into
practice. Strong applause for Evo Morales.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Ebola: Will LatAm succumb?

By Christian Molinari

International news has been abuzz with the Ebola outbreak,
its haunting effects on victims in West Africa and its spread into
Europe and the US. So far, the epidemic has not been confirmed in Latin
America, although Brazil's health ministry reported its first suspected case.

Following
the death from the virus of a Liberian man in a Dallas hospital on
October 8, the US government expanded airport examinations. (The
screening consists of questions about a passenger's history and a fever
check, which passengers can beat by taking medicine to bring down their
temperature.) Previously, a nursing assistant became infected in Spain,
the first person to contract Ebola outside of West Africa.

Marine
Corps general John F. Kelly, the commander of US Southern Command –
responsible for US military activities in Latin America and the
Caribbean – admitted last month that the issue keeps him awake at night.
According to Kelly, Latin America is the backdoor through which many
West Africans, part of a human trafficking chain, illegally enter the
US.

And if Ebola were to take hold in the Caribbean or Central
America, the streaming of immigrants into the US trying to get proper
medical care would be unstoppable, he said.

The numbers are
frightening – with up to 1.4mn possible infections worldwide by early
2015, according to estimates, and half of the victims dying. The World Bank forecasts billions of dollars in economic losses in West Africa alone if the epidemic lasts and continues to spread. It's being called the worst calamity since the outbreak of AIDS.

In short, it's a matter of when and not if the disease will make it to Latin America.

As the 40mn-strong online activist organization Avaaz
points out, the core of the epidemic boils down to a health issue, with
just 0.01 doctors for every 1,000 people in Liberia. "There just aren't
enough medical staff to stem the epidemic," it says, calling for
international medical volunteers to help meet needs.

For Latin
America, the overall sense is that while Ebola is sure to arrive sooner
or later, it will not turn into an epidemic. According to statistics
from the World Health Organization (WHO), many Latin American countries have more than one doctor
per 1,000 citizens. Even the region's poorest country, Haiti, has 0.3
doctors per 1,000 – not a great figure, but still 30 times higher than
in Liberia. The statistic goes all the way up to 6.7 for Cuba.

And
a number of countries in the region are fairly well prepared to address
the virus – Argentina (3.2 doctors per 1,000 inhabitants), Chile (1.0)
and Brazil (1.9) are tightening security at airports.

Argentina,
on epidemic alert, has already designated a number of hospitals in urban
areas as 'Ebola-only' quarantine centers if cases are detected in the
country. Chile, in turn, while saying it is on the WHO's list of the
countries least likely to be affected, has assured that it is
implementing contingency plans to be able to respond to the situation
should it come up.

And Brazil has for years cooperated and shared
information with Hamburg-based Bernhard Nocht Institute (BNI) for
Tropical Medicine. According to Jonas Schmidt-Chanasit, BNI's virology
department director, Brazil is actually very well prepared thanks to
past work the institute has carried out in conjunction with local
authorities regarding dengue-based viral hemorrhagic fevers. That has
allowed the University of Rio de Janeiro to have a virus diagnostic
center to perform tests and detect Ebola relatively quickly.
Additionally, the health ministry said that 37 hospitals in 25 states
are in condition to receive patients infected with the virus.

The
Ebola virus – believed to be naturally hosted by fruit bats – is not
endemic to Latin America, which in and of itself is an impediment to its
propagation, Schmidt-Chanasit said, according to German publication DW.

In
summary, Ebola will arrive in Latin America, if it hasn't already. But
with proper precautions and controls, it will not have the effect seen
in West Africa, and cases will be limited. Keep calm – mass hysteria and
panic have never helped in any situation.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

AG: “Zero Tolerance On Money Laundering”

By JonesBahamas:

Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Allyson
Maynard-Gibson yesterday reiterated the government’s zero-tolerance
position on money laundering as she opened a two-day workshop to address
the risks associated with this practice.

With the growing recognition that illegally earned funds are being
concealed more and more throughout the Bahamas, officials met to
continue the first of three phases of the National Money Laundering Risk
Assessment at the Melia Resort early yesterday morning.

“My presence here this morning indicates the commitment of the
government to Financial Services and doing all that it takes to correct
the ease of doing business ratings – it’s very very low…lower than we
ought to have,” the attorney general said.

Bahamas Anti-Money Laundering Coordinator, Stephen Thompson, said the
sole purpose of the National Risk Assessment is to identify money
laundering and terrorist financing risks in the Bahamas. The two day
workshop facilitated by the World Bank will consist of training on
exactly how to identify the risks.

“This is a workshop where once we would have determined the money
laundering terrorists and financing risks, we will determine how we go
about putting mechanisms in place to strengthen what already exists or
put in place mechanisms to identify areas that are not currently
regulated. We will move in that direction” said Thompson.

Mr. Thompson told reporters that all financial services legislations
will be reviewed for the assessment to determine the risk of money
laundering and terrorist financing risks in the Bahamas.

“What we do is we look at what is called Typologies, Money Laundering
Typologies. These would be the means by which people have laundered
money in the past” said Mr. Thompson, “Those will be the areas,
obviously, that we will focus on. In addition to that, we will look at
any other areas of vulnerabilities. Meaning, any area that is
susceptible to criminal activity, obviously, cash intensive businesses
will be very critical for us to look at. Any area that we know from a
global perspective poses as a risk for money laundering.”

Attorney General Alyson Maynard was also present at the assessment
this morning. She said As the risk assessment continues, Mr. Thompson
and his team hope to find any area that is vulnerable to money
laundering and terrorist financing within the country.

Saturday, October 4, 2014

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 2

By Dr Lazarus Castang:

Continuing from part 1,
where the question was left unanswered, I propose, from numerous
perspectives, an answer to the question: Should homosexuals influence
Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

On the question of majority rule, for the maintenance of social
order there must be some sort of political, or military, or numerical
majority. Numerically, there are far more professed Christians than
homosexuals in the Caribbean society. Heterosexuals are a sexual
majority and LGBTs are a sexual minority. A vote for the repeal or
retention of Caribbean sodomy laws may result in its retention because
of social, cultural and religious norms that do not favour men having
sex with men (MSM). So, purely on the basis of a numerical majority rule
as to whether homosexuals should influence Caribbean society on the
right to sex more than the Caribbean church, the verdict is on the side
of the Caribbean church.

“Should” brings the question of morality into play, while “can” puts the
question of ability on the screen. Homosexuals can influence Caribbean
public policy through political pressures and funding agencies. But it
may still be an uphill battle to overthrow the will of the numerical
majority to legislate what homosexuals do as legitimate, normal or
normative.

The question of the tyranny of the majority over the minority misses the
important distinction between parallel rights and conflicting rights.
Where there is a conflict of rights in society, one right will be made
fundamental and the other less than fundamental. In the Caribbean, there
is a right to conscience (religious liberty), but there is no right to
homosex. If the distinction between parallel rights and conflicting
rights is not kept in mind, then it can be indiscriminately argued that
Caribbean legislations and religious norms create tyranny of the
majority over a minority with crimes of drug addiction, incest,
pedophilia, homosexuality, and bestiality.

On the question of a sexual orientation rule, homosexuals may
be born with tendencies to homosex, and early in life feel attracted to
the same sex. It is an injustice of tremendous proportion to
discriminate or legislate against homosexual orientation over which
homosexuals have no choice. Moreover, how will evidence of orientation
be reliably culled where there is no external evidence of homosexual
practice? Therefore, a clear distinction must be maintained between
homosexual orientation and the behavioural expression of it. In like
manner, a clear distinction must be maintained between pedophilic
orientation and the behavioural expression of it.

Legal and moral consistency requires parity of treatment for homosexual
and pedosexual behaviour. So, the verdict on the possession of the
greater moral influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the
Caribbean church. Analogies between homosexual behaviour and slavery or
women issues are not the best analogies. Sexual analogies like incest,
pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, adultery, polygamy, polyamory, and
male polysexuality are the best analogies.

On the question of morality rule, the argument that a “right”
to sexual orientation is an automatic right to any sexual behaviour on a
sexual continuum is fallacious. Many men have a polysexual orientation,
so is it an automatic right for them to sleep with as many consensual
adult sex partners in order to be true to their polysexual
orientation/identity? Married women will not agree to this, nor will
loving, committed gay partners agree to it.

What is considered “normal” is not automatically moral and there is no
natural right to homosexual behaviour to make it a fundamental right.
Those who call homosexual behaviour a universal human right have not
made the case for the rightness, or universality, or humanity of
homosex. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral
influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.
Morality should not be disregarded even if it is alleged or made to
stand in the way of economic growth. In fact, widespread economic growth
itself presupposes a reduction or stifling of political and moral
corruption in society.

On the question of harmful rule, if homosexual behaviour is a
victimless crime, then incest and bestiality are victimless crimes that
should be decriminalised, legalised and protected. Furthermore, since
there is no scientific research showing that pedophilia causes
measurable harm to all children in all cases, then, pedophilia should be
legislated against on a case by case basis. Harmful rule and victimless
crime have been used to give a pass to prostitution. Interestingly,
homosexual behaviour is against the natural use of women and against the
perpetuity of the human race. Therefore, it is sexist and against our
humanity. So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral
influence in the right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance rules,
these are so-called morally neutral issues that attempt to evade any
talk of the morality of homosexual behaviour. We cannot have a society
that declares a sexual matter a right by sheer ideological fiat. Nor can
we have a society that physically abuses and professionally, or
medically, or socially discriminates against homosexual persons because
they come out or covertly engage in private, consensual adult homosex.

Above all, we cannot have a society that is morally all-embracing from
incest to prostitution to homosexuality to pedophilia to bestiality. How
far do we extend the principle of right to sex if sexual satisfaction
is a right? A moral society must draw the line. Homosexuals draw the
line to include homosex as personally acceptable. The church draws the
line to exclude homosex as morally unacceptable but to tolerate homosex,
like adultery, fornication, male polysexuality as social immoralities
beckoning sincere repentance of heart and reformation of behaviour.

The Caribbean church will not support the legal protection of homosex
that criminalises Christianity’s moral stance against homosex.
Homosexuality is not a moral equivalent of heterosexuality. The opposite
of both homosexuality and heterosexuality is moral purity. So, the
verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the
right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

On the question of privacy, consensuality, male-adult, ownership-of-one’s-body, and right-to-choose rule,
it works on the individual level with a purely private matter, but is
inadequate a rule on the public level. Gay lobby, gay parades, the
homosexual movement/community, promotion of gay lifestyle as a normal
variant of human sexuality and gays coming out are public, not private
matters.

This rule gives free reign to any adult sexual behaviour that crosses
gender, species, or blood-relatedness boundaries. It accommodates
abortion, prostitution, incest, male polysexual behaviours, bestiality,
polygamy, and polyamory. Therefore, such rule is virtually worthless
being exclusive only of children and cognitively disabled individuals,
but accepting of all other sexual behaviours, whether harmful or not.
So, the verdict on the possession of the greater moral influence in the
right-to-sex debate belongs to the Caribbean church.

• The United Kingdom will need
to reform its relationship with the Scots following
the political unrest that led to the referendum

Linet Perera
Negrin

Scotland will not become an
independent country because that is what the
majority wanted. However, the United Kingdom will
need to reform its relationship with the Scots
following the political unrest that led to the
referendum, analysts have claimed.

"Better Together"
the No campaign slogan. Photo: La Nación

The "No" vote won in Scotland. After
307 years of union and following polls suggesting
victory for Scottish sovereignty, in the end 55.3%
of the electorate decided to continue as part of the
United Kingdom.

With a lead of 10%, those in favor
of the union won with 55.3% against 44% in favor of
independence. 1,914,000 of those who went to the
polls voted "No", while 1,539,000 supported the "Yes"
vote.

Although the British government is celebrating the
victory, Edinburgh awaits the concessions promised,
should the "No" campaign win.

Whilst the Scottish National Party
(SNP)’s request for more tax-raising powers was
denied by the central government in 2012, this will
now have to be taken into account in the process
which is already underway, according to a pledge
signed by the three main political parties.

The Conservatives, Liberal Democrats
and the Labour opposition all promised greater
powers, resources and more autonomy for Scotland,
which will impact not only in other parts of
Britain, but throughout Europe.

In response to the results of the referendum,
British Prime Minister David Cameron promised that
Scotland will have increased rights as part of the
promises made by his government on the eve of the
vote.

Cameron said that implementation of
the promises set out in terms of taxation, spending
and social welfare will advance over the coming
months.

He also pledged to push reforms for
the rest of the UK and stated that he had instructed
William Hague, former Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs, to draw up plans for
decentralization. The changes will be reflected in
bills that should be ready by January 2015.

The British Prime Minister also
referred to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and
said the population of these territories should have
more say in their internal affairs.

If local authorities are given more
powers, the Scots will have more autonomy in regards
to tax collection, expenditure budgets and social
services.

Similarly, during the campaign
leading up to the referendum, Cameron promised to
maintain the so-called Barnett Formula of
distribution for Scotland, a system of distribution
of public spending designed by the former Minister
of Economy, Joel Barnett, in the 1970s.

Scots will therefore continue under
this formula which, even with a smaller population,
ensures they receive sufficient resources to run
their public services, granting funds per capita 19%
higher than in England.

Another controversial topic was the
British National Health Service or NHS.

Supporters of independence assured
that only separation would protect the health
service from the cuts imposed by London. Meanwhile,
the leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat
and Labour parties included a categorical promise
that the last word on the money spent in the
National Health Service in Scotland would be for the
Scottish Parliament.

On the other hand, by preserving the
union, London maintains its benefits in terms of the
oil and natural gas reserves in the North Sea and
other natural resources on the Scottish mainland.

Similarly, the British government
will continue to recive taxes from the production of
whiskey, wool, silk and fishing from the rich
Scottish waters. In addition, the British military
bases remain in Scotland.

Another detail is that the Royal
Bank of Scotland, like other financial institutions
that had announced plans to move their headquarters
to England in case of a separatist victory,
announced that it would not be making any changes to
its structure.

In this context, and after learning
the results, the price of the pound rose on the
Foreign Echange Market.

In the political sphere, Scottish
Minister Alexander Salmond, the main champion for
independence, announced his resignation after the
defeat.